Such Luminous Beings

He knows people can *see* his tweets, right?

He knows people can *see* his tweets, right?
He does now. Though his statement of “regret” seems unconvincing, given the unequivocal tone of his original comments.
I do like the fact that many people replied to the professor’s comments with photos and video of random Texans helping each other. As if trying to remind our high-minded educator how to be a half-decent human being.

trying to remind our high-minded educator how to be a half-decent human being
A wasted effort. As noted by other tweeters, he’s not remorseful for what he said, but he’s sorry he was caught.
We muse often here about the mental health failings of ‘liberals’. I have no truck with this; they are nasty pieces of work and it is as simple as that.

A University of Tampa professor recently suggested that Texans deserve the fallout from Hurricane Harvey because of their support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
Or put another way, if you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, you deserve to watch helplessly as your home is ruined or destroyed, while the people you care about are missing, possibly drowned.
As sentiments go, it’s terribly progressive.

And this is a sentiment that the professor was happy to repeat when challenged on it, on a very public platform, where anyone can see it, including his peers and employers. Which suggests either complete idiocy or an assumption that those peers and employers would not find such sentiment in any way remarkable.

In related, but lighter news.

Whoops. Misquoted the protagonist. It should be, “Coffee, my ass. I want to go back to sleep. I want to drink some more.”

Perhaps he should be taken on a tour of the flooded areas, let him see the people that are suffering.
Would he be so flip then?

The reporter did good.
Yes, it’s strange to feel a moment of warmth for a journalist.

We should stop saying that people teach sociology. We need a better terminology.
He pushes sociology. There.
Just say no, kids.

In related, but lighter news.
The guy who rescued the hawk is already in ‘internet’ trouble. In one of his videos, available at the link above, he shows a Confederate flag on his wall…
Cue outrage machine.
Google ‘hurricane hawk’ and you’ll find the joyous masses.

Visiting assistant professor pusher of sociology Kenneth Storey no longer is pushing.
At least not in Tampa, I am sure Evergreen will snatch him up.

“In one of his videos, available at the link above, he shows a Confederate flag on his wall…” That must be the one that’s no longer available.

That must be the one that’s no longer available.
The GoogleTube censors are nothing if not thorough.

pusher of sociology Kenneth Storey no longer is pushing.
Karma’s a bitch.

Heh.
This is the second interweb story I’ve seen this week where college admins do not seem to be completely in the thrall of the Screaming College Garbage Babies*.
This was also somewhat interesting:
The university chancellor quickly issued a written statement soundly condemning the unaffiliated newsletter and its sentiments (it’s quoted in full the comment thread).
(*® Iowahawk)

But his comments were legal and made on a personal Facebook page. Presumably he didn’t use university resources.
Freedom of speech and conscience means little if ordinary citizens get fired whenever they have the wrong opinions.

I might agree, except he made statements that reflected badly on his employer in a very public forum. Even though it (likely) was on his own time, I could see why they’d consider it misconduct. OTOH, the Google engineer who was fired is a different scenario: his paper was a strictly internal memo that was leaked to the media, with the intent of having him punished.

…the Google engineer who was fired is a different scenario…
and he was lucid.

except he made statements that reflected badly on his employer in a very public forum
I’m not generally a fan of people being fired for dumb and nasty comments on Twitter, but as you say, they do reflect badly on the university. Ideally, public embarrassment would be enough of a sanction and deterrent, maybe even a measure of shame. Assuming those concerned are capable of such.
the Google engineer who was fired is a different scenario: his paper was a strictly internal memo that was leaked to the media, with the intent of having him punished.
According to Mr Damore, his memo was written in response to a “diversity” meeting at which feedback, including written feedback, was actively solicited.

It might even teach the professor a lesson.
Let’s not go crazy.

Let’s not go crazy.
Also, the Canucks are going to Lord Stanley’s cup this season.
Could happen.

Also, the Canucks are going to Lord Stanley’s cup this season.
I’m wondering whether I should confess to having no idea what that is.

If you play by the same rules as the left, how can you claim to be morally superior?
Right, at one time it was “ungentlemanly” to spy or use submarines, but that didn’t work out so well. WWII was won because the Allies visited the same violence upon the Axis as they did to every place they invaded, but there was a pretty definitive difference in morality between the sides.
OTOH, you can be like the GOPe here in the US and A and lose every battle because you want to be “principled” rather than actually fight an unprincipled opponent.
Just because one fights dirty, doesn’t mean one is not in the right.

Meh, make the left play by their own rules.
Or in hockey parlance, at some point the gloves come off.
Just because one fights dirty, doesn’t mean one is not in the right.
Similar to any conflict. The moralists sit on the sidelines and speak disdainfully of both combatants. A favorite of the education set is that it doesn’t matter who started it. No decent civilization enjoys dirty conflict. No decent civilization truly wants war. But once war is presented, and in a sense Western Civilization is in conflict and moving closer and closer, when one side becomes impervious to reason, when the meaning of words, and thus laws, are severely undermined, either principles are abandoned or the nastier side wins. Actually the nastier side pretty much always wins. It’s just a matter of which side is more likely to return to accepting the meaning and the value of words and ideas.

@Killer Marmot,

If you play by the same rules as the left, how can you claim to be morally superior?

Easily, the same way I can claim to be morally superior when shooting back at someone shooting at me. But several people have rehashed this general line of complaint, so let me offer another I saw over at Ace:
I object to being a second-class citizen.
And if I have to play by different, more constraining, rules, I am implicitly acquiescing to being a second-class citizen.
At this point the rule in play looks quite well established: Refrain from offending the left too publicly or you’ll get fired, and “too publicly” will be arbitrarily determined in retrospect. John Derbyshire, Voula Papachristou, Donglegate, Jason Richwine, Paul Gottfried, Pax Dickinson, Justine Sacco, Brendan Eich (years retroactively), Charles Murray, Josh Olin, Curtis Yarvin… the list goes on.
You seem to assert that the “moral high ground” consists in I have to watch my mouth, Ken Storey can spew vitriol freely. Fuck that noise. That’s not the moral high ground, that’s a caste system. I would happily like to go back to a system where everyone has individual freedom to say whatever stupid shit they want, but that route seems blocked off. So I’ll settle for the second best that seems more achievable: everyone is treated equally, everyone has to watch their mouths.

And sorry about sports reference. Dropped the ball there.
If you ever find yourself doing a sports quiz in the local tavern, under no circumstances do you want me on your team.
Comic books I can do, and films involving atomic radiation and/or giant robots.

But surely Lord Stanley must’ve been a slave owner and shitlord and the cup must be renamed.

You seem to assert that the “moral high ground” consists in I have to watch my mouth, Ken Storey can spew vitriol freely.

No, I say you should both be able to spew as much as you want, but so long as you do it as private citizens, neither of you should pay with your jobs.
Of course, both of you might suffer resounding mockery and denouncements on social media, but that is all part of free speech.

@Killer Marmot
Are you Rip Van Winkle’s twin? Have you been asleep in a cave for the last (x) years?
The Left have berated the Right for years now on being evil, Nazi, unfeeling, etc. We have taken them at their word and are now trying to emulate them. Hence, we now adhere to the doctrine “punch back twice as hard”.
We fully agree that if a baker can be shut down for their beliefs, then anyone else can as well.
We fully agree that if someone votes in a way that we disagree with, they should be fired.*
WE are being as moral as the Left is… and now this is wrong?
Sheesh
* see Brenan Eich

WE are being as moral as the Left is… and now this is wrong?

Yes, it’s wrong. Beating people up because they’re wearing the wrong cap is wrong. Using the IRS to harass political groups because they have the wrong views is wrong. Hounding people out of their jobs for having the wrong views is wrong. Subjecting students to kangaroo courts when they are accused of serious misconduct is wrong. Destroying property and assaulting the police because you have a political grievance is wrong.
And it’s unnecessary. There are a thousand weapons you can use against the left without resorting to these tactics.
You don’t even have to be deeply principled about it. You just have to think “How would the average decent citizen want a political movement to behave? THAT is what’s likely to be most effective.”

He wasn’t hounded out of his job for having the wrong views.

Not in this case, no. The university likely did it of their own volition, possibly to avoid pressure. I was referring to other cases.
It appears that FIRE has taken an interest, although they have yet to express a definite opinion.

,i>And it’s unnecessary. There are a thousand weapons you can use against the left without resorting to these tactics.
In a democracy the best way to power is votes. In the end if you keep getting the most votes you will likely keep power.
And the parties with the higher moral ground are likely to be the ones that get the most votes. Even scumbags like to think that they are virtuous.
Playing dirty is likely to lead to less votes, and therefore should be avoided. (This is why sections of the Left are so keen to dirty Trump with that Russian nonsense — suggesting he’s bent is far more effective than suggesting his policy positions are wrong.)
Unless you are suggesting that conservatives should play really dirty and get rid of democracy. Because that’s where endless tit-for-tat “we need to play as dirty as them” inevitably leads.

And the parties with the higher moral ground are likely to be the ones that get the most votes.
California (or NY, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, Washington) democrats have more votes, and there is no evidence they have any moral high ground the way they are running their states into the ground. Corbyn, Merkel, Trudeau, all got more votes than whoever they were running against, and they have zero moral high ground that I can see.
Playing dirty is likely to lead to less votes…
Chicago democrats could not be reached for comment.
Unless you are suggesting that conservatives should play really dirty and get rid of democracy. Because that’s where endless tit-for-tat “we need to play as dirty as them” inevitably leads.
Nobody is coming close to saying that. The best way to fight guerrillas is, short of tactical nukes, to use guerrilla tactics. The best way to fight Alinskyites is to use Alinsky tactics.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.“ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

@Killer Marmot, Chester Draws, et al.,
In the abstract, I agree with you completely. That is, I would love proceed under circumstances where political disagreements could be hashed out among people arguing in good faith. The problem is, as I see it, we have been assuming good faith on the part of people who have none. We are dealing with people who don’t care about votes, if those votes don’t go their way. It’s about power and they are willing to do anything it takes to attain it and maintain it. And when they have it, they will not be content to let some of us live our lives privately with our own beliefs while they run the show. Rather they will do whatever it takes to crush any dissent anywhere. As someone said, “You will be made to care.” The examples of the endgame in other places are legion and need not be listed. (But see the Maduro regime in Venezuela for how things like the law and constitution and will of the people are respected.)
So, the question remains: What do you do when the other side plays dirty and has no intention of surrendering? What are these “thousand weapons?” I’m not trying to sound like a jerk, because I really want to know. I’d be happy to leave the Florida professor alone in his campus office if he’d be willing to leave me alone and not force me or anyone else to bake a cake. Or force me to pretend a male is a female in order to make some mao-ling happy. Or send my kids to shitty schools because it’s unfair to other kids who don’t have a stable, loving two-parent family. Or berate my kids in a college class I’m paying for for the accident of being born with not enough pigment in their skin. It never seems to work out that way, though. They cannot and will not be content to just leave the rest of us alone.
The Antifa goons and their enablers are quite happy to have us act on principle in order to avoid lowering ourselves to their level. It’s easier for them to win that way.
So, again the question: What tactics should be used, if we’re going to eschew the Left’s playbook?

This means most of the time, but not always; that is, there may be exceptions to the rule.
Unfortunately, the historical case is that the “exceptions” are pretty close to equal to the non-“exceptions”; the notion that parties with a moral high ground being likely to get more votes is a fallacy.
You will have to look at national trends, such as who dominates the House, the Senate, state governorships, and so on.
Yes, and “domination” of the house and senate accomplishes precisely nothing if the alleged leadership (as is the case now) is more concerned with being perceived as “principled” nice guys rather than standing up to the assorted “exceptions” on the other side. The reason we have Trump is because he didn’t roll over and play dead as McCain and Romney did, and was unafraid to mix it up with the various reprobates on the left.
State governorships don’t mean a hell of a lot if the legislature is democrat (i.e., NJ), and even if the governor and state houses are of Party A, that doesn’t mean a lot if they get steamrolled by feds of Party B.
As R. Sherman points out, we are not dealing with rational actors who will respond to good faith with good faith, their antics only get more egregious because no one is pushing back. This whole “anti”fa crap, for example, would have been over if the National Guard had been called out as Gov. Reagan did in 1969. Firing people for their thoughts will end when idiots on the left realize it can happen to them too, or you can keep letting the school bully take your lunch money.

Very much related to the theme of this thread. You see, they care so very much, and are therefore better people.
And in lighter news, two dog rescues – here and here.
It isn’t known at this point whether the dogs voted Republican.

Big dogs lean Republican, small dogs lean Democrat, and all cats are pure Communists.
That is precisely backwards. Dogs crap wherever they want and leave it to someone else to clean up, can’t be trusted not to eat all their food in one sitting and will starve without someone rationing their food daily, will bark incessantly for no good reason, can’t clean themselves and without constant attention will be perfectly content to wander around filthier than the proverbial hippie, eat poop and vomit, will suck up to anyone with a handout for them, demand constant affirmation from everyone, and are basically wards of the state lacking only EBT cards. Hardcore socialists every last one.
Cats are independent free thinkers, capable of fending for themselves outdoors without leashes and chains, can be left alone for extended periods in a house where they will poop in designated spaces and bury same, eat only enough at one sitting as is needed, are self-cleaning, meow only when there is an issue they wish to call to your attention, will contribute to the household by bringing gifts of food in the form of small animals in various states of disrepair, and do not require constant affirmation but enjoy the company of a trusted few. Conservative/Libertarian.

Husband has his priorities right:
” These trainers cost money!”

Very much related to the theme of this thread. You see, they care so very much, and are therefore better people.

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”…
…and I’ll look down, and whisper “no.”

Perhaps someone ought to tell the left they’re emulating one of their enemies.

I think bobby b has it right. He wasn’t fired from a job at Jiffy Lube where his opinions and shitty ideas have no impact. He was fired from a job where he is entrusted with educating impressionable young people. That he could show such poor judgment in making such a public statement of assholery calls into question his fitness for the job. Given the nature of the job, it is entirely appropriate to hold teachers and professors to a higher standard of public conduct, whether it’s on their employer’s time or not. It’s not even a question of whether his behavior reflected poorly on the university, it’s simply a question of him clearly being far too stupid to be allowed to teach others.

I will say one thing for Florida Man, and yes I am biased, but from what I’ve noticed, Florida Man is generally making the news accompanied by his mug shot or for getting fired. Out on the left coast and a few other places, the kinds of things that get Florida Man fired or arrested are kinds of things those folks put on their resumes or feature in their campaign literature.